What the? Whats the diff between SLR and POS here?

Discussion in 'Photography & Video' started by checks202, Dec 19, 2006.

  1. checks202

    checks202 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Messages:
    684
    Location:
    Sydney - CBD
    Ok,

    I might be asking a really stupid question..

    Here are two pictures, taken from the same tripod in the same position. One photo taken with a POS camera with a 140ml lens ( 4x optical ).
    And the other photo taken with a older Nikon SLR with a Sigma 200ml lens..

    The POS picture is fully zoomed in ( 16x total ( 560ml equiv )).
    The SLR picture is not.

    My question is which has the best picture quality when the boat takes up the full page.. ( so with the SLR pic you'd need to zoom in. )

    Image one or Image two??

    Image One:
    http://img184.imageshack.us/my.php?image=image1gt5.jpg
    Image Two:
    http://img90.imageshack.us/my.php?image=image2ff6.jpg
     
  2. c.leong

    c.leong Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,290
    Location:
    Connecticut
    It depends on the film you've used, and the resolution at which you've scanned said film. But chances are the SLR will give the better image.
     
  3. OP
    OP
    checks202

    checks202 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Messages:
    684
    Location:
    Sydney - CBD
    O ok,

    But wouldn't a 10Mp POS with a 140 lens do better pictures ( not concerned about resoloution, just quality ) at 200ml Equavilent? ( so obvousily using a little digital zoom there )

    Compared to a 6Mp SLR with a 200ml lens and with no digital zoom?

    Or is this a hard question to answer? :)
     
  4. systemdown

    systemdown Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Messages:
    716
    Location:
    Brisbane 4107
    digital zoom < optical zoom

    AFAIK any time you use digital zoom you're taking away quality (i.e. you've reached the limit of information you get from the optics, and are now "creating' intermediate pixels to "pad out" the picture to a larger size). With a 10MP digitally zoomed picture you will have more MP but at the expense of quality. With 6MP you will have less MP but no quality degradation.
     
  5. jimmy

    jimmy Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    2,091
    Location:
    Toowoomba, QLD
    Remember megapixel doesn't determine quality, just print size before quality degrades.

    Rather Optics in the lens play a much bigger part in the image quality and the reciever on the other end being ccd or cmos in your digital and film in your slr.
     
  6. break

    break Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2003
    Messages:
    7,331
    Location:
    Brisbane
    No, otherwise photographers would shoot with POS cameras instead of DSLRS.

    The sensor on a DSLR is much, much bigger than the sensor on the point and shoot... and this means that the image will have less noise. Not to mention the electronics processing the photos have superior color reproduction and balance.

    DSLR will always be > POS at very least until the sensor size is the same, not to mention the HUGE amount of features most DSLR cameras have that POS don't.
     
  7. Raytracer

    Raytracer Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,552
    Location:
    Melbourne
    btw... , POS usually (in IT) stands for Piece of Shit. P&S cameras are Point 'n' Shoot.

    Of course, if the first image really was taken with a POS camera then I wouldn't use it :p



    anyway, the film will be scannable at a higher res than the Other digicam can manage, so you'll be able to get a higher "resolution" image. Sharper, if nothing else.
     
  8. Unit01

    Unit01 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    147
    And then there's the fact that lenses are measured in length, not volume! Unless there's a newfangled water refraction based lens.

    But we know what you're on about.

    Without zooming in on the DSLR pic, id go for it over the P&S.
     
  9. luke o

    luke o Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2003
    Messages:
    3,693
    Location:
    WA
    The SLR shot is much better, the P&S Shoot while slightly closer zoom wise is grainy and horrible (even at low ISO).

    DSLR offer better noise control, the new canon's ISO 1600 is completely usable with little noticible noise. An example of where this might be handy evening shots of say motorbike racing, or anything low light, if the light meters 1/125th of a second @ ISO 1600 wide open aperature wise then the equivalent shot at ISO 100 on the point and shoot is 1/8th of a second which is way to slow to shoot usable photo's at of anything moving, let alone handhold. In this example the DSLR would provide usable shots, the P&S would not.

    DSLR is sharper, clearer, better colours and tonal representation (ability to resolve details accross a wider range of brightness).

    DSLR on its downside is allot more expensive to get the equivalent zoom to the P&S would cost a fair sum, however to offset that you get all the above features and benefits.

    The other advantages DSLR offer are speed. Instant on, instant shutter release. P&S suffers horribly from shutter delay, the momment you press the shutter is not the momment it fires. Moving sports or nature shots are very hard to capture, by the time the shutter actually goes off your target can have moved completely thru the frame. Speed of shutter release, in frame per second is another advantage some of the newer P&S's offer 3-4 fps in "Sports Mode" then they stop and write those images to the card you cant do anything while this is going on. DSLR offer upto 5 - 9 fps completely unlimited buffer size (you can hold the shutter down and take a hundred shots on after the other), the camera is still perfectly usable while its writing to the card as well. The LCD's are better on DSLR's (in general) and they offer histogram reporting, they are usually noticibly more responsive. Autofocus is better offering multi-point sensors, different mode's for Continuos and Servo shooting (tracking and locking).

    There really isn't anything wrong with P&S, they are great happy snap camera's, small light weight and resonable image quality. DSLR is expensive to cover the same focal ranges (you need to buy several lenses), but for landscape, portrait and sports work you can't beat all the advantages they offer. If you just want to take photo's of your family and friends you may not need what DSLR offers.
     
  10. OP
    OP
    checks202

    checks202 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Messages:
    684
    Location:
    Sydney - CBD
    Ok, I'll just quote luke_o response as it's outlined a fair few things that id like to comment about...

    Firstly id like to say the camera's im comparing.

    1. Nikon D70 2004 Model 6mp, 200ml Sigma lens
    2. Canon A640 Model 10mp, 140ml ( 4x optical ) lens.

    Basicaly i can not see much difference between the picture quality. Yes fair enough the POS was more grainy picture in the example given.. But please not it was a digitaly zoomed in picture.. where as the D70 was not.
    However if the POS had the telephoto lens ( 240ml ) id be saying the POS would have fair more detailed picture quality than the D70. Correct me hear if you like...


    ok,

    From the reply:

    DSLR is sharper, clearer, better colours and tonal representation (ability to resolve details accross a wider range of brightness).

    I should take two exact pictures with both the camera's because im stuffed if i can see the difference. I need some help seeing the difference.

    I would totally agree with you however the P&S has a 1/2500 shutter speed, however with the Nikon it only has 1/2000 shutter speed? So how can this be?

    Overall both of the camera's are awesome, i just can't see a big difference if any between the two in picture quality.
    If someone was to say, well go and take a picture of xx with both the cameras to see the difference id be than happy to do it.. Im keen to see the difference as at the moment i see none.
     
  11. Raygen

    Raygen Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    154
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Ok, in that case go take a picture of something at night or at dusk.
    For example just as the sun is going down on dusk take an image (no flash) of some leaves of a tree. Make sure the branch fills the frame.

    This was the type of shot my old P&S absolutely could not cope with, the result was shocking to say the least. Was even worse with flash on.

    SLR on the other hand can take the image hand held at about iso400 without flash and it looks fantastic.

    Try either that or a shot with bright colour (like a coloured spotlight pointing at something). On the P&S it's likely that most of the colour circle from the spotlight will be 1 flat colour while the SLR will resolve the finer detail of what the light is shining on.
     
  12. break

    break Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2003
    Messages:
    7,331
    Location:
    Brisbane
    To be honest.... with that comment alone you've made things very clear.

    You don't have the passion and attention for detail, and you will never really understand why we spend big money on our DSLR's. Hence why they make a wide range of P&S cameras to meet the needs of the people who just want to 'take a photo'.
     
  13. OP
    OP
    checks202

    checks202 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Messages:
    684
    Location:
    Sydney - CBD
    Passion and attention for detail?
    Ok i tell you what i'll two photo's of your choice with both the camera's on the same tripod in the same position. Wether this be a fast moving object, scenry ( bad spelling ) etc is up to you..
    I'll show you the photo's and you tell me whats the difference...

    I'm eager to see the difference but it may just be my eyesight..
     
  14. c.leong

    c.leong Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,290
    Location:
    Connecticut
    You wouldn't be the first person to try to assert that a prosumer camera can do everything a DSLR can.

    Someone else with a flightless bird in his nickname was doing that a while ago, and he was trying to prove that his camera had the measure of contemporary entry-level DSLRs.
     
  15. luke o

    luke o Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2003
    Messages:
    3,693
    Location:
    WA
    I already pointed them out

    If you think those images are both great you need your eyes checked, they are both very average sample images. One much noticibly better than the other in terms of detail and noise (Nikon D70).

    I've already pointed out the ISO advantages, you can simply get shots that are not possible in low light conditions with a DLSR vs a P&S.

    I've already pointed out the noise advantages, a DSLR sensor is much larger and areas like sky, skin, and metal's all look much nicer with less noise than a P&S.

    The ability to resolve details accross a wider range of brightness is a winner for me, people against sunsets, bright lights etc. Mainly due to a larger sensor, and more complex light metering system.

    Other advantages Instant on, instant shutter release. Frame buffer, able to continue shooting even after taking many many shots in a row.

    ________

    In your two crappy sample images the P&S looks ok until you zoom to 200%, it was taken at F4.1 at 1/250th of a second on ISO 100 according to the EXIF.

    P&S Noise at 200%

    [​IMG]
    Click to view full-sized image!
    Hosted by UGBox Image Store

    Nikon D70 Noise at 1600% (note 4x closer view and still less noise)

    [​IMG]
    Click to view full-sized image!
    Hosted by UGBox Image Store

    The D70 image was taken on a cheap consumer Sigma 70-200 F4-F5.6 lense at maximum zoom. The lense is worth about $150 dollars. Try the same image with a Nikon 70-210VR F2.8 lense worth about ~$1800 dollars if you want something sharper.

    If you don't need DSLR don't get it, P&S are fine for happy snaps.
     
  16. OP
    OP
    checks202

    checks202 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Messages:
    684
    Location:
    Sydney - CBD
    But wouldnt the reason for the noise at 200% be because it's allready at digital zoom where as the SLR aint?

    Point taken above, im don't want to seem closed up about this.. :)
     
  17. losfp

    losfp Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Messages:
    340
    Location:
    Sydney
    To be honest, there is IMO sod all difference between a well-taken P&S photo and a well-taken SLR photo. Okay, you will have some benefits with noise, dynamic range and so on.. but IMO the real difference is that it is easier to get your shot with the DSLR.

    - Focusing speed
    - Shutter lag
    - General ergonomics
    - Dedicated buttons instead of having to go through menus
    - Large, bright optical viewfinders with no LCD lag
    - ability to use multiple AF points

    I reckon that if your priority is to get GOOD PHOTOS, then you can't go wrong with either a DSLR or a P&S. If you are genuinely interested in photography, and want complete creative control over your shot, THEN get the DSLR.
     
  18. a777

    a777 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,833
    Location:
    Queensland
    To me that statement is complete rubbish but you are welcome to your opinion :)

    It's like many things in life, some people can tell the difference, some can't, some people pay for "better" things, some don't care as much.

    It's like...
    a $50 guitar or a $1000 guitar
    a $200 computer or a $2000 computer
    a $1000 car or a $100,000 car
    a $50 lens or a $5000 lens

    If you can't see/tell/appreciate the difference then buy the cheap one :D
     
  19. luke o

    luke o Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2003
    Messages:
    3,693
    Location:
    WA
    one sensor is smaller than a 5 cent piece, the other is slightly smaller than a 35mm negative, there is your noise difference pretty much.

    DSLR Strengths

    * Image Quality - I’ve already covered this above in my discussion on megapixels and image sensors - but due to the larger size of image sensors in DSLRs which allows for larger pixel sizes - DSLRs are generally able to be used at a faster ISO which will lead to faster shutter speeds and less grain.
    * Adaptability - DSLR’s ability to change lenses opens up a world of possibilities for photographers. While my point and shoot has a nice little 3x Optical Zoom (and many these days have longer ones) my DSLR can be fitted with many high quality lenses ranging from wide angle to super long focal lengths depending upon what I’m photographing (and of course my budget). Add to this a large range of other accessories (flashes, filters etc) and a DSLR can be adapted to many different situations. It should be noted that when it comes to lenses that the diversity in quality of lenses is great. Image quality is impacted greatly by the quality of the lens you use.
    * Speed - DSLR’s are generally pretty fast pieces of machinery when it comes to things like start up, focussing and shutter lag.
    * Optical Viewfinder - due to the reflex mirror DSLR’s are very much a what you see is what you get operation.
    * large ISO range - this varies between cameras but generally DSLRs offer a wide array of ISO settings which lends itself to their flexibility in shooting in different conditions.
    * Manual Controls - while many point and shoots come with the ability to shoot in manual mode, a DSLR is designed in such a way that it is assumed that the photographer using it will want to control their own settings. While they do come with good auto modes the manual controls are generally built in in such a way that they are at the photographers finger tips as they are shooting.
    * Hold it’s value - some argue that a DSLR will hold it’s value longer than a point and shoot. There is probably some truth in this. DSLR models do not get updated quite as often as point and shoot models (which can be updated twice a year at times). The other factor in favor of DSLRs is that the lenses you buy for them are compatible with other camera bodies if you do choose to upgrade later on (as long as you stay with your brand). This means your investment in lenses is not a waste over the years.
    * Depth of Field - one of the things I love about my DSLR is the versatility that it gives me in many areas, especially depth of field. I guess this is really an extension of it’s manual controls and ability to use a variety of lenses but a DSLR can give you depth of field that puts everything from forground to background in focus through to nice blurry backgrounds.
    * Quality Optics - I hesitate to add this point as there is a large degree of difference in quality between DSLR lenses but in general the lenses that you’ll find on a DSLR are superior to a point and shoot camera. DSLR lenses are larger (more glass can add to the quality) and many of them have many hours of time put into their manufacture (especially when you get into higher end lenses). I strongly advice DSLR buyers to buy the best quality lenses that they can afford. It it’s the difference between a high end lens on a medium range camera or a medium range lens on a high end camera I’d go for quality lenses every time as they add so much to photos.

    DSLR Weaknesses

    * Price - while they are coming down in price (especially at the lower end) DSLR’s are generally more expensive than point and shoot digital cameras. Also consider that you might want to upgrade your lens (as kit lenses are generally not of a super high quality) or you may wish to add more lenses later and that this adds to the cost of a DSLR.
    * Size and Weight - the only reason I take my point and shoot out with me is on those occasions when I don’t want to lug my DSLR (and it’s lenses) around with me. DSLRs are heavy and sizeable and when you add a lens or two to your kit bag you can end up with quite the load!
    * Maintenance - a factor well worth considering if you’re going to use a DSLR with more than one lens is that every time you change lenses you run the risk of letting dust into your camera. Dust on an image sensor is a real annoyance as it will leave your images looking blotchy. Cleaning your image sensor is not a job for the faint hearted and most recommend that you get it done professionally (which of course costs).
    * Noise - DSLRs are generally more noisey to use than point and shoots. This will vary depending upon the lens you use but while point and shoots can be almost silent when taking a shot a DSLR will generally have a ‘clunk’ as the mechanisms inside it do their thing. I personally quite like this sound - but it’s something that is a factor for some.
    * Complexity - while DSLRs are designed for manual use this of course means you need to know how to use the tools that they give you. Some friends that have bought DSLRs in the past few months have told me that they were a little overwhelmed at first by the array of settings and features. The learning curve can be quite steep.
    * No live LCD - in almost all DSLRs the only way to frame your shot is via the optical viewfinder. Some photographers prefer to use a camera’s LCD for this task. Some DSLRs seem to be being released with this feature being added however so if you’re a fan of the LCD framing method you might want to check.

    Point and Shoot Digital Camera Strengths

    * Size and Weight - to be able to slip a camera in a pocket as you dash out the door to a party is a wonderful thing. These days point and shoot cameras can be slim and light - to the point of not even knowing you’ve got them with you. This is great for parties, travel and all manner of situations.
    * Quiet Operation - this was the thing I noticed about my new point and shoot the most. Not only didn’t my subjects not notice I’d taken shots of them at times, once or twice it was so quiet that I didn’t notice I’d taken a shot.
    * Auto Mode - the quality of images produced in point and shoots varies greatly, but in general they shoot quite well in auto mode. I guess manufacturers presume that this style of camera will be used in auto mode (or one of the other preset modes) mostly and as a result they generally come pretty well optimized for this type of shooting (as do many DSLRs these days).
    * Price - in general point and shoot digital cameras are cheaper. Of course you can go to the top of the range and spend as much as you would on a cheaper DSLR, but most are in a much more affordable price bracket.
    * LCD Framing - as I mentioned above, many digital camera users prefer to frame their shots using LCDs. Point and Shoots always come with this ability and some even come with ‘flip out’ screens that enable their users to take shots from different angles and still see what they’re shooting.

    Point and Shoot Digital Camera Weaknesses

    * Image Quality - point and shoots generally have small image sensors which means that the quality that they produce is generally lower. This is slowly changing in some point and shoots but in comparison to DSLRs they still have a way to go. It’s worth saying however - that if you’re not planning on using your images for major enlargements or in professional applications that the quality of point and shoot cameras can be more than enough for the average user. Manufacturers are making improvements all the time in their technology and even in the last year or two I’ve noticed significant image quality improvements.
    * Smaller ISO range - once again this is changing slowly (my point and shoot has the ability to shoot to 1600 ISO) but in general ISO ranges are more limited in point and shoot cameras - this limits them in different shooting conditions.
    * Speed - point and shoot digital cameras are notorious for their slowness, particularly their ’shutter lag’ (the time between pressing the shutter and when the image is taken. This is constantly being improved but the instantaneous feel of many DSLRs is still not there with point and shoots when it comes to shutter lag, start up and even focusing time.
    * Reliance upon LCD - most point and shoot digital camera rely almost completely upon their LCD for framing. While some enjoy this others like to use a viewfinder. Most point and shoot cameras have view finders but they are generally so small that they are almost useless. Some models don’t have viewfinders at all.
    * Manual Controls Limited - most point and shoot cameras do have the ability to play with different settings and controls. They often come with ‘aperture priority’ and ’shutter priority’ modes which are great - but quite often the manual controls are hidden in menu systems and are not as accessible as on a DSLR (if they are there at all).
    * Less Adaptable - while they are highly portable point and shoot cameras are generally not very adaptable. What you buy when you first get them is what you are stuck with using for years. Some do have lens adapters to give you wider angles or longer zooms but generally most people don’t go for these accessories.

    http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/should-you-buy-a-dslr-or-point-and-shoot-digital-camera/
     
  20. losfp

    losfp Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Messages:
    340
    Location:
    Sydney
    I'm not sure your statement really contradicts mine.

    I'm saying that in most cases, the RESULTS are likely to be just as good, provided you can take the shot in the first place.

    I've heard good guitarists absolutely sing on a cheap POS strat copy, whereas I am pretty likely to suck on a $5000 PRS.

    A report I type up on a 10-year-old 486 machine is going to be pretty much the same as the same report I type up on my brand spanking new MacBook Pro.

    A $1000 car will get me to the shops and back, pretty much the same as a $100,000 Ferrari.

    Yep, the expensive guitar will be nicer to play, the expensive computer will be faster and more responsive and the Ferrari will be a hell of a lot nicer to drive than a 4th hand Corolla.

    But that's just what I'm saying. When the conditions are tough, or when you need a specific effect, the DSLR will make it a lot easier to get the shot, and it will look a lot better. When the conditions are good, the QUALITY OF THE PHOTO will not show an appreciable difference IMO.
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: